Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (10667)	2/2/2006 5:21:44 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 544094

They only need to dominate a critical mass of wealth to perpetuate their influence - without particular mertit - without any known time limit. I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean that the families still have wealth and influence than yes I agree. My point is that their relative wealth and influence tends to decline. There is no hard time limit, and for a time in some cases the relative wealth and influence might increase, but it doesn't increase forever. Owning 51% of a large bank, or creating major foundations doesn't change that. J. P Morgan was a much larger factor in the country than all his heirs and charities and companies put together are now. And the fact that the remaining wealth and influence is spread among many individuals and institutions means there is less control. There is no vast Morgan conspiracy with Chase Manhattan, and JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley, and Morgan Guaranty Trust, and Morgan Grenfell to give the decedents of J P Morgan a leg up on everyone else. Most of this wealth isn't controlled by the family anymore and to the extent that it is, that matters less and less as it is spread out over more and more distantly related descendents. At some point being a descendent of J P Morgan will mean about as much as being a descendent of Genghis Khan. Its the same with the other former "Captains of Industry"/"Robber Barons". See any Morgans or Rockefellers or Carnagies or Ford's on this top 25 list? I'm not even sure if there are any passive inheritors of the 19th century "robber barons" on the list at all. I didn't see any but I don't have the patience to check the whole list. forbes.com You have to get to number 10 to get a passive inheritor of wealth from large corporate interests and that's an heir of the relatively recently deceased Sam Walton. (There is Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud at #4, but he isn't entirely passive and also he isn't from the same type of system that we have but rather is a major figure in a ruling monarchy. If our country operated like that I might agree with you.) Tim